Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 24 (225 MHz)






San Francisco 12, California 4, Cca 2, Dell 1, The City 1, Shell 1, G.e. 1, Reed 1, Us 1, Sflafco 1, Hunter Stesh 1, Campos 1, Karen Babbitt 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    March 25, 2013
    4:30 - 5:00pm PDT  

and setting sites and developing the financial model so we can get to a well designed plan and submitted criteria for what that plan needs to en compass. we are ego eager to support this plan. >> i'm karen babbitt. a resident and very excited about this program and thank you for all of your work. i know it's been a long road. because i'm so excited about this is i want it to succeed and want to focus on one main thing and that's the rate. in talking with people over this over the years, the cost issue comes up all the time probably because of the group of people i hang
around with. i want you to keep that in mind, keep in mind the rates and opt out rate. we don't want a bunch of people bailing that really want to participate. thank you. >> thank you very much. i have a few more cards. hunter stern, david dell tore and anyone else who would like to speak please come forward. >> good afternoon. i'm here with a couple comment and questions on behalf of the membership that i represent t labors are here today because we have previously expressed clean power and we are here for the current status of the program specifically our members have three questions that we are looking to have
answered today. one, will this program create jobs for our members and the local community work force that we wish to recruit and employ. 2, how many jobs although program create, 3 when and where will these jobs be created. thank you, we look forward to hearing the answers to these questions this afternoon. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, hunter stesh, 1245 and stop the shell shock. three things i want to point out very quickly and clearly. item no. 1, we represent workers, 1245 represent workers at 28 different utilities in northern and central california. they include p g and e but also 27 others. as those 2 utilities we
have about 1100 members generating electricity and we have about 750 or so at the other utilities generating electricity. those are 17-1800 jobs and you are contracting their work under this proposal you are contracting their work out to shell oil. that is our objection. there is no misinformation, there is no uncertainty, no lack of clarity. this is a contract to shell energy to provide electricity. pure and simple. that is our objection. those are jobs. people want the work and we want control of that energy here in san francisco and in california as a whole. not out of state contracts to
purchase electricity. the other two items we heard today again, there is no plan for a local build out. commissioner mentioned it, rate board members mentioned that. he said it just right because it's our concern as well, if this plan doesn't work and we are stuck with a contract with shell, that's work that my members do that no one else gets the do. that's our issue. and finally, again, using -- moving money around, creating, using a reserve fund as collateral which is what i heard to permit bondings capacity, it's not such a good idea from utility
perspective but that funding amount doesn't occur until the end of the shell contract. that is our fundamental objective. you fore stall all the work all the good that can happen by signing the deal with shell. that's the issue. that's what people are saying, that's what we are saying, it's not miss formation and not pvenlt p g and e's information. we all have the same message, plan and execute a local build out and then you won't have any issues. thanks very much. >> next speaker please and anyone else who would like to comment please lineup along the aisles. >> good afternoon, i want to thank pc commission for all of your hard work, not just today, over the years and the staff, and obviously there is a lot of work going into the issue of
clean energy. i think the one thing i want to say was listen to the questions and discussion is i think that certainly you will hear from the commission discussion and from the speakers there is still a lot of questions out there. we have some time today to try to work through that, questions around the jobs, questions around the rates and comparison from the sierra club that they put out there about the difference cost of similar programs and we are in need answers kind of mode and there is time on the joint session to get son-in-law of -- some of the answers and i guess the big question when you recess, those that can stick around on the 5050, but for those that can to answer the questions, can you answer them today, if not, or if you do, do you set the rates today and i think that's the big question in the moment that we
are all waiting to see. thanks. >> thanks very much venlt -- very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon speakers, i'm the conservation organizer for the san francisco bay. i represent 6,000 members in san francisco. i'm happy that you are having the discussion. have you very much for doing this work. we hope this program is successful. we appreciate your time to taking what's before you and hope you have everything you need to make this a successful program. the eyes of the country is on san francisco as they see this program launches and see if we have built up to a reputation
as the leader for a fight for clean energy and from fossil fuel to clean energy. thank you for taking the time to do that and we appreciate the work you are doing. we are really concerned the rates are still too high and i encourage to you discuss that. no one is turned off by this program because this is a discussion for the rates. all of people will eventually be part of this program. if we lose them in phase one. they will probably not go back to us. we would like ninety percent of the residential ue customers to come to this program. thank you very much.
>> hello, i'm a 50 year san francisco resident and have currently operating 3 different companies here in the san francisco bay area currently employing 65 people in all clean energy wefrment currently building out a little bit over 3 mega watts with clean energy resource by the end of this year in san francisco and very active in the go solar program and very spupt supportive of the program here as well. i would like to offer suggestions for jobs and create additional fundings for the build out here in san francisco. the first is all of the recitizenship
pients. recitizenship recipient has a build out program that is also benefiting the cca. there are numerous details around them to detail, but if you do something like that, not only will you attract customers to the cca, you will create more direct jobs and create a growing fund creating growing amounts of clean energy in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member who would like to comment? is the person coming quickly to the podium to be speaking? anyone else? >> good afternoon commissioners, a quick point on the last public speakers
proposal, eedey with the by like defense. rejects that prior proposal, they are very clearly 2 different programs and sierra club as joined in this position as well. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? seen none we will close the comment. i would like to thank the public for being here as well. clearly we have a lot of agreement about what we want this program to do. we want it to create clean renewable energies, we want it to be robust and we want that to happen as quickly as possible wechlt -- we have questions about how long it will take to
get there. we hope it will be brought out in a short period of time. i actually for the presentations we had, the survey was very informative about how we are going to be able to keep, retain a lot of customers in the program. 47 percent i believe was before we talked about a build out of 47 percent of people who would want to stay in the program is very significant. we weren't trying to look at a vast majority of san francisco. and it's encouraging about how this would turnout. we heard from the rates board members and the rates being sound and fair. how do we craft the rates that are going to lead to customers setting in as much as possible as well as having money left over to build out. next time we
meet, i want to encourage we meet again as a sflafco with the public utilities commission that we get an actual vote the not to exceed rate moving forward and that would give us some certainty about how we move forward for a planned build out. we also heard a lot from commissioners about a plan if not outlined if not planned for the build out and we could not wait longer than the next meeting between if we can have a joint meetings by the end of april to have a report on more concrete build out plan. i think part of that should also look at the different scenarios by the next meeting. clearly, we really want to have a great deal of certainty about
how we get to our build out as quickly as possible. there has also been discussion about how we bond. i know we have discussion about a billion dollar bond. do we have really that type of bonding capacity. it would be good to have perhaps the controllers office does a lot around the financing and from the p u c at those levels based on a program that is still not providing actual generation of electricity at the local level. it would be great to have answered for us at the next meeting about what kind of bonding capacity we have. rpi local power has provided some analysis about build out. i think it's not
something we have discussed today but important look at. we did have a party to look at it's feedback and viability and if there is anyway for a preliminary discussion by the next meeting would be important. those are my thoughts. colleagues if you have any other comments to add? >> thank you, mr. chair. again i want to thank the president of the commission and all the commission members for being here. also to both the p u c general manager and the sflafco staff. this is a very complicated subject matter and i know there are very strong opinions on different sides of this issue. the reality is the complexity of this program is such that you are never going to be able to make everyone happy on either side. people
who don't want it clearly, people who want it but they want to it look a certain way and some people in the middle. i think the way that we as a city have been able to get to where we are right now with community choice aggregation is to really try get through all the noise and really figure out where there is a path that leads to a result that makes sense for the rate payers and for the city. oftentimes that means finding a middle ground. my hope is that we collectively, not only at sflafco but at the p u c find the middle ground and the middle ground is striking a balance between trying to get a low a rate as we can for rate payers but at the same time moving with a robust build out. that i think social is the
challenge here. i think there is more to do to lower the rates where they are. in that sense there is agreement on all sides that we need to do everyone -- everything we can to make the rates as low as possible. from fine see from people who have trying to go get us to move and we are not putting it off in 8 months and come back and have a plan buchlt but we have to be honest. there are some advocates that are never going to be completely satisfied and i think that's a fact of life
and we need to figure out what is real and what isn't because i don't agree with the approach that unless you get a hundred percent the program that you want, that you tear it down. i don't believe that. as much as i hate to say it, i do think there are some within the advocate community that are willing to do that and i'm not going let that happen and likewise p g.e. will do everyone they can to make this program not successful. ironically, where the two extremes at some point meet each other and if those that want to see this program succeed in a meaningful and robust way so we can do right by the workers but as we don't take years as we have been
doing. i don't think it's just about the rates, i don't think california benefit from slowing this down and has nothing to show for years to spend lots of money to make this happen. we are at a critical juncture where i actually believe we'll be able to do that, we'll be able to make sure we have the lowest rates we possibly can and in the meantime move forward with a robust build out. i have always satisfied -- said that to the extent in the p u c and the higher to what this build outlooks like to use the discretion to hire someone to do a peer review.
there is a contract where we can use some of that money to provide guidance to both sflafco and the p u c as to what can be used in terms of the work product that has been date of birth and -- done and we have that focus to move this forward. i think this survey, i'm sort of a glass half full kind of person where some people see x percentage opting out , i also see a percentage opting in. i think it depends on how we do this. but the expectation that every member of the board of supervisors who voted for this program was that we would have a program that moved forward quickly, that we would have a slow set of rates as we possibly could and in the process we would move expeditiously in the build out. i think we can do that and
i look forward to coming back so we can keep going with this endeavor. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner campos. commissioner reed? >> thank you. i would like to list a few things and move forward but clearly lower rates are one thing that i think is extremely important. i'm hearing from john reez oh that lower rates is actually exciting for me because i think that's what i'm looking at. i want to see the rates reduced, i want to see somehow there being an incentive for getting more people to participate in this program. i don't want to us move quickly and then have the program not be successful. i would like to if at all possible, see what the build outlooks like, what the plan looks like and i know there are
explorations around the amount of money it would cost and whether or not the financing through bonds are an option but i want to really understand what that actually looks like because i think that's really extremely important because they be and only then with a specific plan around the build out we can expect when the jobs will begin to roll out. so seeing a clear concrete plan is important. i want to be able to advocate aggressively for this program but i want to have facts and want to say to my constituents this is my program and i want to make sure we are doing it right. so i would like to understand exactly what this means in terms of jobs and in terms of the impact of industries, in terms of the build out and what that means
as well as what does this other county do to keep the rates down. i do want to figure out a way in which the rates can be reduced. i think we all have that same goal, but i would like to look at those particular avenues. thank you for being here today. the public input was extremely helpful as well as the information and i would like us to take it a step further so i can be confident when it comes before us and see the rates that in fact this is the best we can do >> thank you, every aspect is trying to look at how we can minimize the rates and working in california as well. i think the important thing is to have those questions answered and why our rates are what they are in san francisco. that would be
worthy of bringing it back to the commission and sflafco as well if we can have that at our next meeting. i would agree with that. any last words on the public commissions that we ask for? >> i think they are totally acceptable and we'll move forward on that point and i want to incorporate the executive producers, i agree with you completely in terms of the agenda and thank you for the labors union and the environmental representative and to the citizens of san francisco for coming forward. when they pointed me to this position they said you are now the rate payers representative and i take this position seriously and i move for the next meeting. >> colleagues, can we file
these items? okay. thank you very much. we can move on to our next item, 5. >> discussion regarding the m o u dated between the public utilities commission. >> i have discussion of item 5? >> yes that is the item i was expecting as well. >> we can call that item. it's one of the agenda we have. i think we have 3 agendas. that's why it's confusing. >> it's the item on memorandum of understanding. >> public utilities commission. >> we just wanted commissioners
to bring to your attention the fact that our joint m o u has expired and we wish to renew relationship. it's successful from staff perspective. we participant to continue under the rules and responsibility described in the existing memorandum up of understanding. for purposes of the public utilities commission we'll be presenting and item for your consideration on the meeting to amend the m o u. simply to extend it. >> do you have anything to add to this discussion item? no. no. just to clarify there is no budget impact with it. it's a continuations under of the original term. >> with that i think we have covered everything we need to address. >> okay. we can do public comment on item no. 5. seeing
none, we close for comment. our next item we have a closing remark is item no. 9. closing remarks? >> we did give some direction to the public utilities commission? public comment on item no. 9. seeing none we'll close public comment that concludes the sflafco commissions meetings. we are still in recess for sflafco. we were going to discuss? no? okay. >> we can an adjourn. >> we would officially have to
cancel our meeting on the record. >> if i may we'll call you are adjourned on your next meeting. the call to order the public -- call the roll. >> you could actually cancel the regular meeting without adjourning. you have as the president of the commission you have the capacity to cancel the meeting or the other way. >> the meeting is will canceled to our next meeting of april 23rd. >> okay. thank you so we can
give it due to our public commissioners. we have we have still have some sflafco. can we keep the recess going for another 3 minutes.